Paper Company Recovers 102,000 Yuan After Court Rejects Buyer’s Payment Claims

A paper manufacturer has recovered over 102,000 yuan in unpaid invoices after a protracted dispute over delivery records and payment evidence. The case highlights the importance of maintaining clear documentation when dealing with irregular payment arrangements.

From 2008 onwards, a paper company in Hangzhou supplied white card paper to a customer who operated a printing and packaging business. The parties had an informal arrangement where goods were delivered first and payment followed, without formal contracts or systematic invoicing.

By 2011, the supplier claimed the customer owed 102,751 yuan based on 18 delivery receipts signed by the customer personally. The supplier had initially claimed a larger amount but dropped claims for deliveries signed by third parties when the customer disputed those signatures.

The customer defended by presenting bank transfer records totaling approximately 338,100 yuan sent to the supplier’s legal representative. The customer argued that all outstanding debts had been settled through these transfers and earlier cash payments.

The court examined the evidence over three separate hearings. Regarding the delivery receipts, the court accepted only the 18 documents bearing the customer’s own signature. Delivery documents signed by third parties were excluded because the customer denied receiving those goods, and the supplier chose not to pursue those claims.

On the payment side, the court found that while the bank transfers were genuine, they could not be matched to specific deliveries. The transfers included lump sum payments of round thousands, and the customer admitted to paying loosely with overpayments and shortfalls carried between transactions. Two transfers to a different bank account were excluded as the customer could not prove they went to the supplier.

The court applied the burden of proof rule: the customer, asserting that full payment had been made, bore the responsibility of proving which debts had been settled by each transfer. Since the transfers could not be correlated with specific deliveries, the court could not accept the customer’s claim of full payment.

After deducting verified payments from verified deliveries, the court confirmed an outstanding balance of 102,751 yuan and ordered the customer to pay within the judgment period.

This case demonstrates that informal commercial relationships create significant evidentiary risks. Both parties should maintain itemized records linking payments to specific deliveries to avoid disputes over whether accounts have been settled.

Disclaimer: This article summarizes a court judgment for educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.